Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 632 posts

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#151

Post by chrisseaton »

_jal wrote: post #140
chrisseaton wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not have the imagination to think of any situation where the majority of workers may want something that's not in your interests? For example you morally support allowing new people to enter your field but the union is mostly comprised of more established people and they vote for credentialism to restrict supply. Probably I'm very aligned with my employer on wanting to lower barriers to entry for the field!

> Do you not have the imagination Why the rudeness? I'd also note that you appear to demand 100% alignment with your ethics from unions in return for your support ("think of any situation"), but are fine with being somewhat aligned with your employer. You seem to already have chosen a tribal affiliation.

> Why the rudeness?

You said I since I didn't agree with you I must not be politically astute so I returned the favour!

> I'd also note that you appear to demand 100% alignment with your ethics from unions in return for your support ("think of any situation"), but are fine with being somewhat aligned with your employer.

But my employer pays me. And they're an essential part of the agreement. The union wants me to pay them, and they're optional, so yes I expect them to do a better job aligning to me otherwise why bother with them? What is the point joining a union, lending them what little power you have, as well as actually giving them money, if they aren't very aligned?

My current work negotiation is me and my employer. I have what I want and my employer has what they want. Why involve a third party, who may want something completely different, possibly morally offensive to me? Why do that?

I guess you're going to say 'because the union acts in your interest'. Well, let me tell you - there's a whole world of people out there offering to 'act in my interest' in return for something. Most of them are charlatans. Beware.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#152

Post by gradys »

ahelwer wrote: post #77
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These kinds of takes are always weird to me. Shouldn't it matter, at least a little, that the rule was what a 17-point majority of voters wanted? You don't have to personally agree with every democratic outcome, but it almost sounds like you're saying the results of a vote aren't legitimate if they go the wrong way.

Well, this is where we see inequality as a force that perverts democracy. The side of capital has an enormous quantity of resources (by definition) that they use to influence electoral outcomes. So in a way, yes, the votes aren't very legitimate when the side of capital out-spends the side of labor by thirteen to one: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-16/skelton-...

Do you think there's any chance that this was actually what a majority of Californians wanted? You seem very confident that you know better what the voters wanted than they did.

While differences in spending surely have some effect, spending isn't the only way to get the word out. I didn't measure, but I feel pretty confident that no more than 60% of the total communication about Prop 22 that I heard from any source was pro. I think it could have been a minority actually. For every PR firm the pro side hired, there were thousands of unpaid activists on the con side (which does say something positive about the con side!).

I noticed you brought out the "lawmakers can't repeal" line. This is true, but also effectively standard for ballot measures in CA. In fact the default is that you can't repeal or change the law under any circumstances. This was one point that initially swayed me to vote "against", but once I learned that this was basically how all ballot measures work (including ones you support, I'm sure), I swung back to voting "for".

For me, this was a difficult call, but I voted "for" on the basis of the net good for the entire pool of current drivers, admittedly at the expense of the smaller number of drivers who would have been able to drive under a better deal had this passed.

The net effect this would have had on driver welfare is far from obvious, so it always bugs me when people assert that the only reason this passed by a 17 point margin is that people were tricked and confused by the ride sharing companies.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#153

Post by SllX »

_jal wrote: post #140
chrisseaton wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not have the imagination to think of any situation where the majority of workers may want something that's not in your interests? For example you morally support allowing new people to enter your field but the union is mostly comprised of more established people and they vote for credentialism to restrict supply. Probably I'm very aligned with my employer on wanting to lower barriers to entry for the field!

> Do you not have the imagination Why the rudeness? I'd also note that you appear to demand 100% alignment with your ethics from unions in return for your support ("think of any situation"), but are fine with being somewhat aligned with your employer. You seem to already have chosen a tribal affiliation.

You can leave a company and get a new job. That’s a good time to renegotiate your terms of employment. You can even use the impending threat of your departure as a negotiating tactic.

Unions complicate an otherwise cut and dry relationship of your employer trying to extract value from you and you trying to extract value from your employer until you reach an equilibrium.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#154

Post by sodality2 »

valbaca wrote: post #145
fireball_blaze wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also reference Amazon's "Do it without dues" site: https://www.doitwithoutdues.com/

HEY BHM1 DOERS, why pay almost $500 in dues? We’ve got you covered* with high wages, health care, vision, and dental benefits, as well as a safety committee and an appeals process. There’s so much MORE you can do for your career and your family without paying dues. *Applies to regular full-time employees. IF YOU’RE PAYING DUES… it will be RESTRICTIVE meaning it won’t be easy to be as helpful and social with each othe…

Which is hilarious, because talking during a shift is frowned upon even if it doesn't impact productivity. And if it does? Expect a call within the day

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#155

Post by darkwizard42 »

willcipriano wrote: post #83
skeeter2020 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying you have made some sort of value judgement, presumably based on logic and information, but if someone sends you a piece of propaganda you'd totally change your position? You don' t play poker, do you?

> That doesn't make any sense. You're saying you have made some sort of value judgement, presumably based on logic and information, but if someone sends you a piece of propaganda you'd totally change your position? You don' t play poker, do you? Sending out propaganda is a new piece of information. When someone is trying really hard to get you to believe something, or act in a particular way, that in and of itself is…

Forget Magic (though I appreciate the reference), this is like basic strategic thinking. Especially when there is a clear motive for the opponent (Amazon) to behave the way they are with little but trust they will do the right thing for you (worker).

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#156

Post by xrendan »

tyingq wrote: post #98
balabaster wrote: post #95

Full disclosure: I've always been anti-union for my own personal approach to life. I do see the value in unions, I've just always, to this point, been a go-it-alone-and-fight-my-own-battles kind of person. I don't want to be beholden to a union or their rules any more than I want to be beholden to an employer beyond my contractual obligations for which I'm paid. That said, people should take note of what happened whe…

You appear to perhaps be from the UK (saw "honour"). Employees in the UK have quite a lot more protection by default than they do in the US. I do respect your go-it-alone-and-fight-my-own-battles position, but consider that you might feel differently if you were in a US "right to work" state.

I'd assume Canada since up here we've got a weird mix of americanisms and britishisms. Also, the state/province gives a bit away.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#159

Post by dcrn »

soperj wrote: post #144
vertex-four wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you’re paid minimum wage in the US, and you’re not permitted to perform a full-time job, you probably have to hold down multiple jobs; you probably also don’t get things like healthcare from any of them. Zero hours contracts in theory mean you can refuse work (at least that’s how it works in the U.K.), but obviously you’re going to be fired for doing so, so you’re essentially constantly on call for both/all your…

if you have multiple jobs, then you clearly have time to find another job.

Many times, if you're having to take on another job, you don't have the luxury of "time" to find the best one, e.g. pays well, has benefits, etc. You take the first or second job that comes to you and work for as much time as possible at that one as well. Speaking from experience, people don't take on multiple jobs just to work them for an hour or two a day.

Re: Amazon Sends ‘Vote No’ Instructions to Unionizing Employees

#160

Post by [deleted] »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #155
willcipriano wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't make any sense. You're saying you have made some sort of value judgement, presumably based on logic and information, but if someone sends you a piece of propaganda you'd totally change your position? You don' t play poker, do you? Sending out propaganda is a new piece of information. When someone is trying really hard to get you to believe something, or act in a particular way, that in and of itself is…

Forget Magic (though I appreciate the reference), this is like basic strategic thinking. Especially when there is a clear motive for the opponent (Amazon) to behave the way they are with little but trust they will do the right thing for you (worker).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN